About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
second amendment rights and the second amendment rights of our law-abiding law-ag citizens. we have seen the newtown parents here in washington bravely telling their stories. they deserve better than this body turning their backs on them. the families of aurora deserve better than this body turning their backs on them. the families of more than 30 people who die every single day at the hands of gun violence deserve more from this body. my friends, it is simply time to act. today is the day for this body to show the american people that their voices matter. that when 90% of americans demand us to expand background checks, that we can deliver. we should be able to agree today that we no longer need military-style weapons and ammunition clips on our streets. and we should be able to agree today that it's time to crack down on the illegal handguns being trafficked in our streets into the hands of criminals. four years ago, i met the parents of naisha pryor yard. naisha was a beautiful 17-year-old honor student killed in the prime of her life by an illegal handgun when she was just spending t
with our government's top national security priority, which is the lawful effective and humane interrogation of this subject for the purposes of gathering intelligence. the boston attacks were clearly inspired by the violent ideology of transnationallist islamist terrorism. so we need to learn everything we can about what foreign terrorists or terrorist groups the suspect and his brother might have associated with, whether they were part of additional plots to attack our nation, and what other relevant information the suspect may possess that could prevent future attacks against the united states or our interests. i think we need to delve further into this whole issue of the education that some people who are motivated by these base ideologies obtain over the internet and the effect that it's having. we should at least know about that. our civilian justice system offers a responsible option for striking this balance with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety.
. >> recognized experts in law, medicine and ethics. the group includes conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats. and you can find her biographical information in the press kit and in the report itself. the constitution project is enormously grateful to the members of the task force for their diligence, dedication, time and courage. they all contribute a remarkable expertise and stake their considerable personal and professional reputation to produce this report. i also want to thank the staff that guided the task force, which was extraordinarily diligent, meticulous, and hard-working. the american public owes both the task force members and the staff a debt of gratitude. eight a the 11th of the task force are here today, as is neil lewis, the task force's wonderful executive director. i'm pleased to introduce one of the groups co-chairs, ambassador james jones will begin the presentation. thank you. >> thank you very much for the introduction. let me first say that personally and on behalf of the task force members, i want to express our sympathy and our solidarity with the people
control act? wouldn't it be appropriate for us to know what measures have to be taken in case existing law continues to prevail? >> we are -- yes, it is. we do. for example, i noted in my testimony we will be coming up to the congress a significant package of reprogramming request, which we have worked with the congress on. >> it's one thing to have reprogramming request. it's another thing to submit a budget, overall bijt that reflects the reality of the law as it is today rather than sending us a budget that has restoration of cuts that so far there's been no movement or action to rerepeal. i think we need to know what happens if we don't repeal. it's in your interest, in my view, to give us that information as to what would happen if we just simply comply with existing law. >> well, i want to address both the points. one, we are continuing to do that, senator. and as part of marty's testimony, part of my testimony on what we are doing and explaining working with committees here in the house and the senate on we continue -- don't make the change what will be requested. for example, suppl
,ming. mr. presiden this amendment protects the privacy and sety of law-abiding gun owners. when government officials release gun ownership information it puts many lives at risk. this includes the lives of lawful gun owners, the lived of law enforcement and the lives of ctheic violence. state or local governments that release private gun owner information will be penalized 5% of their federal program funding. this includes the release of private information on individuals 0 who have licenses to purchase or who possess or who carry firearms. the funding that's withheld will then be redistributed to the states that are in compliance. this amendment will ensure that gun owners across the nation do not have their private gun owner information publicly released. thank you, mr. president. and i urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: this is a case of washington being big brother and telling each one of the states whether it's wyoming, vermont, or connecticut here's what you have to do. we have no idea
a budget at the reality is that the law as it is today rather than sending a budget that has restoration of cats that go far has been no movement or reaction to repeal. we need to know what happens if we don't repeal. it's in their interest to give the information that we just simply comply with existing law. >> we are continuing to do that, senator is part of marty's testimony, part of my testimony on what we are doing explaining working with the committees here in the house and senate what's going to be requested. for example, supplemental curb reissues. is that within the realm of what's going to be required? we don't know. i would add on the budget in one of the points made to smyrna nonmanaged, the senate and house budget resolutions for defend, essentially with basically the same numbers as our budget. not at all dismissing your questions that are real and legitimate under reality. as you know as well as anyone, this a $600 billion enterprise. this was put together of a series of the year and to readjust that and come back with new members in the budget. we are dealing with the rea
't reflect the law? secretary hagel? >> the fy15 budget we'll present earl next year will reflect the reality of whatever the situation is. i don't know if between now and next february if they worked hair on it, both parties, president has. >> that's why we're surprised when it didn't reflect this time around, but happy to hear it reflects the law of the land next time around. you know, last month, the addition of 15 additional intercepters will be deployed to alaska as reaction to the provocations we've had from north korea. this brings the numbers of alaska to the number of originally planned during the bush administration, i believe, later we deuced by president obama. i have a question to you about this. was the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made, and if so, when did that occur? >> the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government who was not consulted in any way, and it was not that decision, that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally
and decisions, which obviously affect complying with the law of the land if we have to. >> if i may follow-up, do you have an intention for a timetable for when the department would get back to the committee on it intension and plan for complying? >> i have to look at the review the deputy secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs are leading and preceded on that basis. i don't want an expectation that isn't correct. that's why want to make sure i understand what is expected. as to your questions about overseas and other adamant however and the observation about assessing what you have to do to comply with these new realities. yes his affairs. we have been consolidating and closing facilities overseas the last few years. we'll have a study complete at the end of this year, specific way on additional recommendations of consolidating overseas. should be i agree. i think the leadership, dod donate to the terror infrastructure in this country as well. >> can i just had a couple of facts? there's about 30 more scheduled over the next 30 years in addition to the consolidation. we've bee
, elected official, law enforcement, they really present us with a set of complex questions. and above all, though, i have to repeat that the justice department, our federal united states department of justice, has the responsibility to enforce the controlled substances act. and that remains unchanged. to -- no state, no executive can nullify a statute that's been passed by congress. as the department of justice has noted, though, federal drug enforcement resources -- just like i did as a police chief -- we prioritize and target the serious crimes. serious crimes of drug dealing, violent crime and trafficking. and let's be clear that law enforcement officials take an oath of office to uphold federal law, and they're going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers and transnational criminal organizations, all of which weaken our communities, and they pose very serious threats to our nation. and too often discussions about marijuana, though, dwell on this issue of legalization and whether making the drug more widely and easily available -- which it would be when it becomes lega
of the sequester and it's important to emphasize it is not a one-year proposition is writt into law to continue. given a list of fat and the woulit be fair to say then, riouses security risk basedt right now? >> it certainly is consuming a company intelligence community leadership for what we see happening to the capability and importantly the expectations people seem to have for our having this global insight and that is going to be very hard. if we sustain sequestration through 2021, what the law calls for, as i said in my testimony to the senate in telogen's community and a day before, we collectively have to rethink what people expect from the intelligence community because it isn't going to be the same. >> general flynn. >> i just want to emphasize is a senior leader, just to reemphasize the general clapper talked about, we are about people and we do not want to damage that vital component of our capability. the sequestration provides is no flexibility. not just this year, but over the long haul. our adversaries won't take a strategic pause and the real cost director clapper highlightedvwe
sometime in the middle of the next decade. since the trust fund can't borrow if the laws are changed medicare will be unable to pay full payments for charges in the age i trust fund. it will only be able to reimburse providers 85% of what they are charging. so clearly legislative action has to be made before that he either to raise taxes or slow the growth in spending or preferably a little bit of both. i my reckoning i have completed my assignment and rather than take a gold star as i said i want to have a couple of general observations. the first when we have discussiodiscussio ends like this we should make clear what our goal this. if our goal is to moderate the growth of medicare costs what cost are we talking about quicksilver talking about the federal government scots? are we talking about the federal government and beneficiaries cost or are we talking about federal government scots in the beneficiaries cost and the cost borne by states localities and private payers? in other words, when we talk about medicare for former cost savings you can reduce medicare programs federal cos
of retirement and health care benefits is consistent with what is required by the federal law of ups, federal express and every other almost every other corporation in the country it would be very similar. >> it could be different from what the private sector companies are doing. i would like to know, i would like to make that available to the postal employees that i represent throughout the country. >> you are correct but it's not the same for health care benefits. i will provide a more detailed record. >> you are saying the postal service now is operating at 140% of current revenue; is that the number you gave? >> drm laes, unfunded liabilities. >> bankruptcy would probably be where they are. >> finally let me go to something completely unrelated. you testified he wanted more flexibility in their rates in respect to packaging the monopoly on first-class they would have it facto monopoly on the third clause catalogs and what people would refer to as door hangers and nobody has the reach you do. how do you give that flexibility without giving you the power to do sweetheart deals and take the
both would have to sign before to become law. they would have to agree on executive order, sipri court nominees, decisions as commander-in-chief of the military. each would have their own vice president for a small personal staff but all other appointments the executive branch or the judiciary would be a single joint appointee. with that they could make decisions so much more quickly. you sort of have a democrat nominating a democratic person or republican for republican. you would have a bipartisan nominee and there wouldn't be a confirmation in the position will be filled much more quick way. in all likelihood they would divide up primary responsibilities. one might direct health care and the other education. one might focus on our relations with european countries and the other with asian countries but when it would come time to make decisions they would have to agree. all decisions would have to be shared decisions. joint decision would make it more representative decision-making. instead of having a republican president champing the platform of the republican party or a democratic
the country continues to supplement the growing and oppressive military capability by bolstering maritime law enforcement to support the claims south and east china sea. russia continue to resist putting more international pressure on syria or iran and display create sensitivity to missile defense. closer to home despite positive trends latin america weak ends to slow recovery from devastating natural disasters and drug-related violence and trafficking. in venezuela the presidential election occurred four days ago. officially announced result indicated candidate nicholas won in a narrow victory. so in some given the magnitude and complexity of our global responsibilities and comprehensive intelligence, in my mind, has never, more important or ursubsequent. i have trouble reconciling this of sequestration. with that i thank you for your attention and now turn to general flynn for his statement. >> thank you. good morning chairman, distinguish member of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify for your continued support to the dedicated intelligence professionals of the defense i
zones. and so another thing that i would do, more of this point involves local laws and federal law, but if i were in charge of that school district i would be lobbying to allow teachers to have concealed carry, to have a gun locked up in a desk drawer, you know, for the principal demands. ultimately, that's the only thing i know of that might've saved any lives in the situation. we have gun registration up there. the cities that we are the most significant gun control seem to have the most significant crime in our country. >> what's wrong with the concept of universal registration? >> i think one doesn't go to the problem if the problem is mass shootings by young men at gun free zones, registration doesn't deter these young men. registration works for law-abiding citizens. nearly if you look at crime, nearly 90% of crime is committed by guns that are bought illegally already. if you look at gun shows, i think in 2004 they did a survey of inmates and it was like one, 1.7% are committed with guns from gun shows. i think, let's, if the background checks were, why do we enforce what we
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15